Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because is public domain. I am grateful.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

The fancy that the cosmos was not vast and void, but small and cozy, had a
fulfilled significance now, for anything that is a work of art must be small in the sight of the artist; to God the stars might be only small and
dear, like diamonds. And my haunting instinct that somehow good was not merely a tool to be used, but a relic to be guarded, like the goods from
Crusoe’s ship-even that had been the wild whisper of something originally wise, for, according to Christianity, we were indeed the survivors of a
wreck, the crew of a golden ship that had gone down before the beginning of the world. But the important matter was this, that it entirely reversed
the reason for optimism. And the instant the reversal was made it felt like the abrupt ease when a bone is put back in the socket. I had often
called myself an optimist, to avoid the too evident blasphemy of pessimism. But all the optimism of the age had been false and
disheartening for this reason, that it had always been trying to prove that we fit in to the world. The Christian optimism is based on the fact
that we do not fit in to the world. I had tried to be happy by telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought its meat from
God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man is a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself
was at once worse and better than all things. The optimist’s pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; the Christian
pleasure was poetic, for it dwelt on the unnaturalness of everything in the light of the supernatural. The modern philosopher had told me again
and again that I was in the right place, and I had still felt depressed even in acquiescence. But I had heard that I was in the wrong place, and
my soul sang for joy, like a bird in spring. The knowledge found out and illuminated forgotten chambers in the dark house of infancy. I knew now
why grass had always seemed to me as queer as the green beard of a giant, and why I could feel homesick at home.Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

We can divide the commandments in the Old Testament (OT) into three types:Cultural and Civic -- for the OT Israelite culture, like commands on how to divide the land among the tribes.Ceremonial -- concerning the Israelites' worship.Moral -- for all cultures, at all times, like the commandment that husbands stay with their wives (Genesis 2:24, repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:5). Moral commandments, stated first in the OT, are also found in the New Testament (NT).We can't always tell which type of command was meant. The church generally does not hold that the first two types of commandments are binding on Christians. At the Jerusalem conference, when some Jews felt that gentile Christians must obey the ceremonial law, the leaders wrote: Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: 29a that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality At least one of these prohibitions is not usually taken as binding by most Christians anymore, (eating blood) and at least one wasn’t always followed in NT times: 1 Corinthians 8:8 But food will not commend us to God. For neither, if we don’t eat, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. 9 But be careful that by no means does this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak. The Acts 15 statement was about the ceremonial law. It does not undo God's moral laws.

Some questions to ask ourselves before starting a new activity or relationship, or making a significant purchase:1) Is it consistent with the Bible? Especially Mark 12:29b ‘Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 The second is like this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’2) Would it put my spiritual health at risk? Physical health is also important.3) How will it affect other people? Will this drive others away from Christ, or attract them to Him? (See Romans 14:1-15:8)4) Why am I considering this? Be careful to do nothing because of pride.5) Has God given me a personal conviction against this (or for it)? If so, I'd better abide by that conviction. (Convictions are personal – not everyone will agree.)6) Have I promised not to do this (or to do it)? Promises, including church vows, and marriage vows, should be kept.7) How much will it cost me? (In money, time, effort and emotionally)

Monday, June 22, 2015

As you are probably aware, Pope Francis has released an encyclical on climate change. (Here is a link to that document.)Here is extensive coverage from CNN, including some video reports on papal infallibility, and on climate change.Wired and Christianity Today have commentary on the pope's action. So does the BioLogos forum, an organization of Christian scientists and others. These comments are largely favorable.Some commentators associated with Fox News were not so positive, by a long shot. See here and here, for samples. Some prominent Republicans, including some Catholics, also did not support the Pope on this matter. Thanks for reading!

Sunday, June 21, 2015

It was as if I had been blundering about since my birth with two huge and
unmanageable machines, of different shapes and without apparent connection—the world and the Christian tradition. I had found this hold in
the world: the fact that one must somehow find a way of loving the world without trusting it; somehow one must love the world without being
worldly. I found this projecting feature of Christian theology, like a sort of hard spike, the dogmatic insistence that God was personal, and had
made a world separate from Himself. The spike of dogma fitted exactly into the hold in the world—it had evidently been meant to go there—and then the
strange thing began to happen. When once these two parts of the two machines had come together, one after another, all the other parts fitted
and fell in with an eerie exactitude. I could hear bolt after bolt over all the machinery falling into its place with a kind of click of relief.
Having got one part right, all the other parts were repeating that rectitude, as clock after clock strikes noon. Instinct after instinct was
answered by doctrine after doctrine. Or, to vary the metaphor, I was like one who had advanced into a hostile country to take one high fortress. And
when that fort had fallen the whole country surrendered and turned solid behind me. The whole land was lit up, as it were, back to the first fields
of my childhood. All those blind fancies of boyhood which in the fourth chapter I have tried in vain to trace on the darkness, became suddenly
transparent and sane. I was right when I felt that roses were red by some sort of choice: it was the divine choice. I was right when I felt that I
would almost rather say that grass was the wrong colour than say it must by necessity have been that colour: it might verily have been any other.
My sense that happiness hung on the crazy thread of a condition did mean something when all was said: it meant the whole doctrine of the Fall.Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The Bible mentions a number of sins having to do with sex. Adultery, which is violating the marriage covenant, is so important a misdeed that it is mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality is presented as a sin. Some sexual sins, all of them specific prohibitions (don't have sex with an animal, or with your sister) are listed in Deuteronomy 27. But the Bible doesn't cover all sexual misbehavior. The New Testament is probably more about our attitude, our relationship with God, than about setting forth all the possible dos and don'ts. The Old Testament, too, can be summarized in the commands to love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we do these things -- and we need divine assistance to do them -- we will meet God's behavioral standards.Here are some sexual behaviors that I believe are sinful, but that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so far as I know:* Having sex with a child. I suppose we should have sense enough to know that is wrong, without a scriptural prohibition. The Golden Rule, and the "love your neighbor" also prohibit this.* Although both prostitution as a part of idol worship, and "ordinary" prostitution, and the use of prostitutes, seems to have been considered wrong, there is nothing direct in the Bible about pimping -- making arrangements between prostitutes and customers.* Jesus said that looking on a woman to lust after her was a form of adultery. He didn't say that for a woman to look on a man in this way was a form of adultery, but it must be. So, I guess, must homosexual look-lusting be sinful.* There is nothing in the Bible about sex slavery. * Using, and producing, pornography must also be sinful, because it's lusting after images of someone, or helping someone else to lust after such images. * The Bible doesn't say so, but using sexual images or other stimuli to sell merchandise seems to me to be sinful.It seems to me that all six of these behaviors are sinful, although the Bible doesn't specifically say so. Probably the last three of these weren't really possible in Bible times. Unfortunately, they are now.The Bible does indicate that sex outside of marriage between a male and a female, committed to each other, is wrong, in many ways. But see here -- I was surprised at how little the Bible really says about this.

Stay pure. 1 Corinthians says that there is hope for us when we haven't been pure in the past:1 Corinthians 6:9b Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortionists, will inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 Some of you were such, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God. (World English Bible, public domain)Thanks for reading.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Thus the ancient world was exactly in our own desolate dilemma. The only
people who really enjoyed this world were busy breaking it up; and the virtuous people did not care enough about them to knock them down. In this
dilemma (the same as ours) Christianity suddenly stepped in and offered a singular answer, which the world eventually accepted as the answer. It was
the answer then, and I think it is the answer now. This answer was like the slash of a sword; it sundered; it did not in any sense sentimentally
unite. Briefly, it divided God from the cosmos. That transcendence and distinctness of the deity which some Christians now want to remove from
Christianity, was really the only reason why any one wanted to be a Christian. It was the whole point of the Christian answer to the unhappy
pessimist and the still more unhappy optimist. As I am here only concerned with their particular problem, I shall indicate only briefly this great
metaphysical suggestion. All descriptions of the creating or sustaining principle in things must be metaphorical, because they must be verbal.
Thus the pantheist is forced to speak of God in all things as if he were in a box. Thus the evolutionist has, in his very name, the idea of being
unrolled like a carpet. All terms, religious and irreligious, are open to this charge. The only question is whether all terms are useless, or
whether one can, with such a phrase, cover a distinct idea about the origin of things. I think one can, and so evidently does the evolutionist,
or he would not talk about evolution. And the root phrase for all Christian theism was this, that God was a creator, as an artist is a
creator. A poet is so separate from his poem that he himself speaks of it as a little thing he has “thrown off.” Even in giving it forth he has
flung it away. This principle that all creation and procreation is a breaking off is at least as consistent through the cosmos as the
evolutionary principle that all growth is a branching out. A woman loses a child even in having a child. All creation is separation. Birth is as
solemn a parting as death.
According to most philosophers, God in making the world enslaved it. According to Christianity, in making it, He set it free. God had written,
not so much a poem, but rather a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers,
who had since made a great mess of it. I will discuss the truth of this theorem later. Here I have only to point out with what a startling
smoothness it passed the dilemma we have discussed in this chapter. In this way at least one could be both happy and indignant without degrading
one’s self to be either a pessimist or an optimist. On this system one could fight all the forces of existence without deserting the flag of
existence. One could be at peace with the universe and yet be at war with the world. St. George could still fight the dragon, however big the
monster bulked in the cosmos, though he were bigger than the mighty cities or bigger than the everlasting hills. If he were as big as the world he
could yet be killed in the name of the world. St. George had not to consider any obvious odds or proportions in the scale of things, but only
the original secret of their design. He can shake his sword at the dragon, even if it is everything; even if the empty heavens over his head are only
the huge arch of its open jaws.

Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Sunday, June 07, 2015

Nature worship is natural enough while the society is young, or, in other words, Pantheism is all right as long as it is the worship of Pan. But
Nature has another side which experience and sin are not slow in finding out, and it is no flippancy to say of the god Pan that he soon showed the
cloven hoof. The only objection to Natural Religion is that somehow it always becomes unnatural. A man loves Nature in the morning for her
innocence and amiability, and at nightfall, if he is loving her still, it is for her darkness and her cruelty. He washes at dawn in clear water as
did the Wise Man of the Stoics, yet, somehow at the dark end of the day, he is bathing in hot bull’s blood, as did Julian the Apostate. The mere
pursuit of health always leads to something unhealthy. Physical nature must not be made the direct object of obedience; it must be enjoyed, not
worshiped. Stars and mountains must not be taken seriously. If they are, we end where the pagan nature worship ended. Because the earth is kind, we
can imitate all her cruelties.Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.